6

4

lands to whom she will. If she should leave no will, the lands would
pass to her next heir. {But} And if L obtains a divorce dissolving the marriage
of course H's marital pretensions would not be advanced thereby.
In short in no event (upon the supposition stated), can H claim any interest in or benefit from the
trust_estate, except in so far as he may enjoy it by L's acquiescence.

But the lawsof Alabama like them of Virginia, probably submit in casesof divorce the [dispertion?] of
the property of the parties to the discreton of the Court; which however it is presumed, wd never in
a Case like this, be exercised in favor of the husband, unless possibly where the [?]
was helpless & needy, & the wife's estate was {?] more than enough for the support of herself
& child.

3. If L obtains a divorce, is H entitled to be re-imbursed out of the
trust_estate, for his expenditures in the way of 'improvements' thereon.

I assume that the 'improvements' contemplated are of a
permanent character, and even upon that supposition I am of
opinion that H is entitled to no allowance therefor.

When one person makes improvements upon another lands,
he has no right to expect to be indemnified therefor, [?] under one or
other of the following circumstances:

1st where a [passed?] has been {perpretated?} practised upon him by the [owner?] of the
property;- as if {the true owner} he stands by and suffers the improvements
to be made, without giving notice of his title. [illegible] 1237
Green v Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1.77.78 [Cawdor?] & [Lewis? 1 [illegible] & Coll. 427. Pilling
v Armitage, 12 Ver.84,85: Wells v [Barrister?] 4 Mas. 574.

2d Where the true owner seeks the aid of a Court of Equity to euforce
his title. In such a case, upon the principle that he who asks equity,
must do equity, the applicant must submit to pay for the melioration
& improvements in good faith made by the occupant, so far as the same
are beneficial to the real owner. This would happen where an equitable
claimant files his bill to assert his right; and also where one of several
joint owners having been in exclusive possession, a bill is filed
by his [co-tenant?], for a partition, & an account of {p.a.?} rentss & profits. He cannot in the
one case, recover the land by virtue of his equitable title, nor in the
other, have the rents & profits decreed him, without paying for the beneficial
improvements made by the occupant. 2 [illegible] S. 1237,
79a, 799b, Swan v Swan, [illegible], [578?], Green v Biddle, 8 Wheat.[illegible] Putnam

4

lands to whom she will. If she should leave no will, the lands would
pass to her next heir. {But} And if L obtains a divorce dissolving the marriage
of course H's marital pretensions would not be advanced thereby.
In short in no event (upon the supposition stated), can H claim any interest in or benefit from the
trust_estate, except in so far as he may enjoy it by L's acquiescence.

But the lawsof Alabama like them of Virginia, probably submit in casesof divorce the [dispertion?] of
the property of the parties to the discreton of the Court; which however it is presumed, wd never in
a Case like this, be exercised in favor of the husband, unless possibly where the [?]
was helpless & needy, & the wife's estate was {?] more than enough for the support of herself
& child.

3. If L obtains a divorce, is H entitled to be re-imbursed out of the
trust_estate, for his expenditures in the way of 'improvements' thereon.

I assume that the 'improvements' contemplated are of a
permanent character, and even upon that supposition I am of
opinion that H is entitled to no allowance therefor.

When one person makes improvements upon another lands,
he has no right to expect to be indemnified therefor, [?] under one or
other of the following circumstances:

1st where a [passed?] has been {perpretated?} practised upon him by the [owner?] of the
property;- as if {the true owner} he stands by and suffers the improvements
to be made, without giving notice of his title. [illegible] 1237
Green v Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1.77.78 [Cawdor?] & [Lewis? 1 [illegible] & Coll. 427. Pilling
v Armitage, 12 Ver.84,85: Wells v [Barrister?] 4 Mas. 574.

2d Where the [t?] ownder seeks the aid of a [?] of Equity to euforce
his title. He seeks a case, upon the principle that he who asks [e?].
[?] do equilty, the applicant must submit to pay for the melioration
[?] is good faith made by the occupant, so for as the same
as beneficial to the real owner. This would happen where an equitable
claimant files his will to assest his right; and also where one of
[liberal?] [?]_ownders [h?] [b?] in [?] possession, a will is [?]
by his [co-?], for a partition, [?[ account of {?} seats & profits. He cannot in the
one case, [?] the land by [?] of his equitalbe title, nor in the
other, [how?] the cents & [profits?] [?] heir, without paying for the [?]
[i?[ [?] made by the occupant.